DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 293 164 CS 506 085

AUTHOR Payne, J. Gregory; Baukus, Robert A.TITLE Trend Analysis of the 1984 GOP Senatorial Spot.PUB DATE Apr 85NOTE 32p.; Paper presented at the McElroy Symposia

"Current Trends in Broadcast Advertising" (CedarFalls, IA, April 1985). For related document,see CS 506 081.

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) --Speeches /Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS Advertising; Elections; *Persuasive Discourse;

*Political Campaigns; Political Candidates; PoliticalInfluences; *Television Commercials; TelevisionResearch; *Trend Analysis

IDENTIFIERS Advertising Effectiveness; Media Use; *PoliticalAdvertising; Political Communication; PoliticalImage; *Political Rhetoric; Republican Party

ABSTRACTThis report of a study investigating the advertising

strategies of various senatorial candidates and their resultspresents a trend analysis of GOP Senatorial advertisements aired ontelevision throughout the United States during the 1984 nationalelection campaign. One hundred and one campaign spots from allgeographic regions were examined in light of popular assumptions andexpectations concerning the nature of modern electoral.campaigns. Thecommercials were viewed in the context of two variables: (1) ads werestudied from a regional perspective; and (2) spots were examined todetermine if incumbent candidate advantages were manifested indifferent commercial patterns and strategies between incumbent andchallenger candidates. Other factors evaluated included contenttheme, topic issue, source of endorsement or attack, use of symbolicartifacts, stylistic characteristics, social and location context,and actual length of the spot. Analysis revealed that attack andargument ads were the two most prevalent spot categories, suggestinga trend toward greater usage of negative spots in politicalcampaigns. In addition, most issues were presented in a generalmanner, indicating that politicians tried to identify themselves withwhat they perceived as the most popular social attitudes and policyconcerns. (A polispot preliminary code book, and 35 footnotes areappended.) (MM)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

TREND ANALYSIS OF THE 1984 GOP SENATORIAL SPOT

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS BEEN GRANTED BY

6alOCI ()NM

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

J. GREGORY PAYNE, PH. D.ROBERT A. BAUKUS, PH. D.

NEWS STUDY GROUPINSTITUTE FOR COMMUNICATION STUDIES

EMERSON COLLEGEBOSTON, MA

News Study Group Researchers

LYN DISBROWMARYBETH KILDUFF

MARC REISLERJOSEPH ROSS

LORNA SCHMIDT

PRESENTED AT THE MCELROY SYMPOSIA"CURRENT TRENDS IN BROADCAST ADVERTISING"

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWAAPRIL 10-12, 1985

2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

O This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

O Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

INTRODUCTION

"Some kinds of communication on some kinds ofissues brought to the attention of some kindsof people under some kinds of conditions havesome kinds of effects."(1)

Bernard Berelson

Whereas the hucksters and the politicians have enjoyed a

prosperous relationship for over thirty years, a precise

connection between campaign advertising and votes - the bottom

line of any political contest has yet to be established.

Political media experts agree that the only element of which we

can be certain is that no one can accurately gauge the effect of

political advertising on election outcome. Robert Squier, noted

noliticAl expert on the subject of media consultancy writes: "The

very best people in this business probably understand only about

five to seven percent of what they do that works. The rest is all

out there in the unknown."(2) Speechwriter and political aide

Robert Goodman adds: "The crime in our business is that we never

know why the candidates win or lose."(3) After over thirty years

of studying political advertising on television, little can be

Payne/Baukus

added with certainty to Berelson's statement concerning the

contribution of the polispot to the campaign process.

Despite the nebulous connection between campaign ads and

candidates' success, candidates continue to earmark large

portions of their campaign budgets to the production of stylish

spots utlizing the latest Madison Avenue strategies. Sources

have pegged the spending of the Mondale and Reagan campaign teams

for spot production and placement at over $50 million, a figure

which rivals that of the entire U.S. budget in 1952.(4) It was

then candidate Eisenhower who in a TV spot chastised the

Democratic Congress for submitting this outrageous budgetary

figure.(5) Clearly, today's politicians are comfortable with the

idea of spending huge amounts to keep their names and faces in

America's living rooms, even though they cannot be sure how or if

such action affects the election outcome. Analysts Stephen Bates

and Edwin Diamond in their discussion of the 1984 presidential

campaign advertising make the following observation:

"Pervasive and stylish as these campaign imageswere, they actually did very little to alterthe political realities of 1984. That is,Ronald Reagan began the year with a substantiallead over Walter Mondale in the presidentialpreference poll, and the needle stuck there for

most of the rest of the year. None of theimages put forward by either campaign did muchto change the numbers."(6)

One immediate question in the light of such huge spending figures

is: what a:a the politicians getting for their money? The study

4

Payne/Baukus

presented here suggests that the senatorial candidates obtained a

diverse collection of advertising strategies, manifested in

different spot styles, with the expectation that for whatever

unknown reason, they will contribute to political success.

PURPOSE:

This report presents a trend analysis of GOP Senatorial

advertisements aired throughout the United States during the 1984

national election campaign. The availability of one hundred and

one campaign spots from all geographic regions has provided the

researchers with the opportunity to examine a large group of

political spots from a comprehensive perspective, in the light of

popular assumptions and expectations concerning the nature of

modern electoral campaigns.

In terms of an overall conceptual approach, the commercials

were examined in the context of two variables. First, in order

to ascertain any consistent geographic trLAds, the ads were

studied from a regional perspective. Second, it is frequently

postulated that the incumbent candidate brings certain advantages

to a political contest. The spots were examined in order to

determine if such advantages are manifested in different

commercial patterns and strategies between incumbent and

challenger candidates. Intrinsic concerns also were addressed:

content theme, topic issue, source of endorsement or attack, use

of symbolic artifacts, stylistic characteristics, social and

3

5

Payne/Baukus

location context and actual length of the spot. The basic

research strategy involved the classification of these political

ads into discrete categories as outlined by Edwin Dialwnd and

Stephen Bates in The Spot: ID, argument, attack, resolution.(7)

A full list of variables is included in Appendix 1, POLISPOT

PRELIMINARY CODE BOOK. Whereas this is primarily a descriptive

report on the trends inherent within the spots analyzed from the

incumbent-challenger and geopolitical basis, it is not intended

to be a comprehensive quantitative study. Where appropriate, the

report will detail perceived differences and similarities between

the findings of this study and the past research on political

spots and campaign strategy.

The project is intended to determine: 1) the presence of trends

and patterns in the commercials that are consistent with popular

hypotheses and assumptions concerning the nature of political

advertising, 2) to expand upon such assumptions with emphasis on

such questions as regions and incumbency. Following a brief

explanation of Diamond and Bates' spot types, and a presentation

of the coding system and methods, the results will be presented

and discussed regarding each of the general categories listed

above. Within each of the areas listed in Chart 1, i.e., topic

issue, basic findings will be highlighted followed by a

comparision, where appropriate, of trends on incumbent-challenger

and geo-region of the spots studied.

4

6

Payne/Baukus

CHARACTERISTICS OF DIAMOND AND BATES POLITICAL SPOTS

In their publication, The Spot, the authors identify four key

rhetorical types of political advertising which also usually

conform to the campaign's chronology:

ID - One of the first steps in politicaladvertising; the goal is to give the voter asense of the candidate, to establish a foundationfor name identification. Simple and innovativestyles are employed to visually and graphicallymassage name identification throughout thespot. Association of candidate with a symbolicissue is frequently established in this type ofad. Bio spots which frame the candidate aroundcommonly valued personal characteristics andcompact narrative histories of the candidate'slife are in this category.

ARGUMENT After name recognition is establishedthe candidate tells the viewer what he standsfor. These spots characteristically lackspecifics but often contain emotional "hot" spotsof interest to the voter. Most commonly orientedtoward issues, themes of the campaign or majorideas, arg spots feature the candidate ora constituent or political leader endorsementlinking the candidate to a particular issue. Theyare frequently aimed toward a particulardemographic or interest group.

ATTACK Following the name recognition andestablishment of issue or personality traits, thethird phase of the political campaign commonly ischaracterized by negative advertising. Namecalling, direct personal attacks, man-on-thestreet, and symbolic attacks are frequentlyused to discredit the opponent. Delivered mostoften by the candidate in the early years of TVspots, attack ads now are most frequentlydelivered by surrogate speakers.

RESOLUTION At the end of the campaign, thecandidate sums up and attempts to appearthoughtful, and dignified and reflective withoutthe overpowering visuals and the strident voices

5

Payne/Baukus

of the campaign. This spot represents a return'co the positive ads and usually characterizes thefinal week of the campaign. In recent years, theformat has favored a a one-on-one style; thecandidate summing up 11.s/her thoughts to thevoters. (8)

In addition to spot types, traditional geographical boundaries -

north, south, midwest, and west - were examined to provide for

the regional analysis. The regions, along with the actual

Republican candidates whose spots were analyzed, are provided

below in Chart 1. Incumbents and challengers are identified by

(i) or (c) following the candidate's name. Those candidates

involved in primary contests and whose spots were studied are

listed, with the winner of the primary underlined. To refresh the

reader, the Democratic opponents are also listed, The winner of

the general election is designated by bold print:

CHART 1

NORTH:

MAMANHNJ

DE

SOUTH:

TNWV

MSTX

KYARSCVANCAL

GOP CANDIDATE

Elliott Richardson(c)Ray Shamie(c)Gordon Humphrey(i)Marge Rockema(c)Mary Mochary(c)John Burris(c)

Victor Ashe(c)John Raese(c)Sam Kusic (c)Thad Cochran(I)Phil Gramm(c)Tom Pauken(c)Mitch McConnell(c)Ed Bethune(c)Strom Thurmond(i)John Warner(i)Jesse Helms(i)Albert Lee Smith(c)

8

DEMOCRAT OPPONENT

John Kerry(c)Norman D'Amours(c)Bill Bradley(i)

Joseph Biden(i)

Albert Gore(c)Jay Rockefeller

William Winter(c)Lloyd Doggett(c)

Walter Huddleston(i)David Pryor(i)Melvin Purvis(c)Edith Harrison(c)Jim Hunt(c)Howell Heflin(i)

MIDWEST:

MNNEIAMIIL

;NWT:

NMCOWYMTSDWY

Rudy Boschwitz(i)Nancy Hoch(c)Roger Jepsen(i)Jack Lousma(c)Charles Percy(i)

Pete Domenici(i)Bill Armstrong (i)Malcolm Wallop(i)Max Baucus(i)Larry Pressler(i)Alan Simpson(i)

CODING PROCEDURES AND DATA MANIPULATION

Payne/Baukus

Joan Grove(c)James Eton(i)Tom Harkin(c)Carl Levin(i)Paul Simon(c)

Judy Pratt(c)Nancy Dick(c)Roger McDaniel(c)Chuck Cozzens(c)George CunninghamVictor Ryan(c)

The available political advertisements were quantified using the

above mentioned code book by four trained coders. Two coding

teams were employed. Each team included two graduate students who

had had training in research methods and were familiar with the

process and techniques of content analysis. All coders attended

multiple training sessions conducted by the principle

investigators. This insured the coders were aware of the

operational definitions of the categorical variables and the

rules of classification used in the analysis. Sample spots were

coded and discussed in order to assure that the coding procedures

were objective and reliable.

The complete sample of one hundred and one political ads were

divided and each team independently coded the spots that were

randomly assigned to them. Coders entered the data representing

each variable onto a pre-printed code sheet. The completed data

7

9

Payne/Baukus

set was entered into a machine readable file.

Sub-routines of the statistical package for the social sciences

(SPSS) were used to generate the information that was utilized by

the investigators to develop the content and format trends found

in the advertisements described in this paper.

CHART 2

SPOT CATEGORIES BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGION AND CANDID= TYPE

NORTH

IDS ARGUMENT ATTACKS RESOL BIO

INC. 1 0 1 0 0

CHA. 3 1 1 0 3

TOTAL 10SOUTH

INC. 1 5 11 0 0

CHA. 8 5 4 0 0TOTAL 34

MIDWESTINC 0 4 5 0 0

CHA. 1 2 1 1 2

TOTAL 16NEST

INC. 4 7 5 0 0

CHA. 2 3 0 0 0 TOTAL 21

TOTAL 20 27 28 1 5 TOTAL 81

(TOTAL DOES NOT EQUAL 101 SPOTS. 10 RNC ADS ARE NOT INCLUDED ANDTEN SPOTS WERE DROPPED DUE TO MACHINE DIFFICULTIES.)

10

Payne/baukus

TREND ANALYSIS

SPOT CATEGORY

The analysis reveals most of the studied GOP senatorial spots to

have been aired in the south, followed by the west, the midwest

and the north.(See CHART 2) The majority of the commercials from

the study were classified as either attack or argument, according

to the Diamond and Bates categories. The argument style of ad was

popular with both incumbents and challengers. The attack style,

however, was far more popular with incumbent candidates than with

challengers. One interesting observation concerned the fact that

of incumbents who made use of attack spots, all except those in

the midwest, Percy and Jepsen, were re-elected. Of the GOP

challengers who used this type of spot, only McConnell of

Kentucky was able to win the election. Clearly, of the

commercials in the study, incumbents had greater success than

challengers with the attack type of spot.

Regionally, southern candidates made far greater use of attack

spots than those from any other locale, with almost three times

the the number of attack ads as in the midwest, the next highest

regional concentration. Furthermore, in the south, incumbents

used more attack spots than challengers by an overwhelming

margin.

PaynetBaukus

After argument and attack, the next most popular spot, category

was ID. In the north, south, and midwest, the challenger

candidates were more inclined to use this type o' spot than were

incumbents. In the west, however, the reverse was the czse. The

researchers observed further that the ID type of spot was popular

with li4mgx4Amla primary candidates.

The least popular spot category was the resolution type of which

only one was found in the collection of ads. The candidate using

this type of spot was not elected.

CONTENT STRUCTURE

. . a great deal can be said though relatively fewcandidates do so. Straightforward positions can bemade. . . . Most campaigns avoid such specifics butthat has less to do with the thirty second spot formatthan with campaign strategy." (9)

PiAmond and Bates, The Spot

Most of the candidates chose not to enter into a detailed

discussion of issues in their campaign advertising. The most

frequent content theme found in the analysis was of the casual

mention type. Rather than discussing a single topic in depth,

candidates tended to address topics from a less esoteric

perspective often discussing several topics in a single spot.

Although both incumbents and challengers used casual mention type

spots most often, the researchers observed that the challenger

candidates across all regions were more inclined to use other

content modes than were incumbent candidates.

Payne/Baukus

Such findings are consistent with Joslyn's 1980 research of

political spots, which found most political ads only mention

issues without offering detailed specifics. (10)

TOPICS

One indication of a possible coherent theme of the 1984 campaign

would be the presence of a consistent topic througout the

individual senatorial races. It was observed, however, that there

was an equal distribution among candidates for a numher of

diverse topics. One particular pattern was noticed. Most

candidates made reference to personal character traits that they

judged to be positive. This trend was particularly evident among

incumbents in the south. Joslyn's earlier research also found

that a predominant topic of spots studied concerned candidate

qualities.(11)

In addition to 7haracter traits, the general topics of all spots

most often included: national economy, taxes, personal political

accomplishments. Regionally, crime also was a highlighted topic

in the south and midwest.

In all regions, challengers were more apt to mention their

opponents than incumbents. Regionally, in the south and midwest,

the trend was for the opponent to be referred to verbally or

graphically by incumbents as the initial agenda item in all

spots. None of the ads in the north included reference to the

Payne/Baukus

opponent.

It was observed that candidates were reluctant to use humor as a

strategy in their spots. Also, very few candidate advertisements

had heavy religious overtones.

Approximately, one third of all spots contained symbolic

artifacts; graphic references clearly intended to evoke a desired

image in relation to a particular subject. The most frequent

symbolic references were issue oriented, i.e., a candidate or

constituent endorser discussing farm issues while walking through

a .orn field. In addition, state symbols, such as the state seal

or flag were included, especially in southern spots.

Use Of The President

"For years, Jesse Helms has been telling thetruth. Government can only spend what it borrowsor taxes away. And, working Americans who paythis nation's bills need higher taxes like theyneed a plague of locusts. . . . Jesse Helms,working for all of us in the United StatesSenate."(12)

President Ronald W. Reagan inthe "salute to Jesse" spot

The researchers questioned whether the senatorial candidates

would utilize endorsements from the president in their

advertising, thereby taking advantage of his popularity. They

found that southern candidates made greater use of President

Reagan's popularity than did candidates from other regions. 72%

Payne/Baukus

of all spots which included the president were aired in the

south. 10% of all GOP spots analyzed contained partisan

reference, a finding also consistent with Joslyn's previously

cited work. Most spots featured candidate self-endorsement or

paid announcers speaking on behalf of the candidate. While

western incumbents primarily used consituent endorsers,

Challengers in the south tended to advance their ,mn candidacy.

STYLE AND FORMAT

The majority of spots were presented in a style that can be

characterized as pseudo-cinema verite'. Although giving the

impression of a candidate meeting with and fielding questions

from a group of constituents extemporaneously, most such scenes

included an announcer or candidate voice-over rather than the

actual flialogue of the scene. This technique provided an

element of control within the ads, which checked the spirit of

spontaneity.

Although the burden of their political past was an issue to some

candidates, the confessional spot in which admissions and errors

are discussed was not used in the ads studied.

There were a large number of what Diamond and Bates identify as

"supers" ads superimposing words, facts and figures over

screen images.(13) This style was used often by challengers in

the attack spot.

13

Payne/Baukus

Even though the attack ads bucked the trends, most of the other

spots addressed two or more topics and were 30 seconds in

length. Regionally, challengers in the north and midwest were

more inclined to visually and graphically repeat their names in

spots than were incumbents. The reverse was found in the south

and west where incumbents tended to reiterate their names in the

spots studied. Visually, in the south, incumbents relied on one

single camera shot of the candidate, while challengers opted for

multiple photographic images of the candidate (three or more

separate camera shots).

A variety of different camera techniques were used to open and

close the spots. These included rolling videotape of the

candidate on camera, the candidates placed in keyed windows, and

the wipe. Spots, especially those of llallengers, also made

ample use of the latest digital graphic techniques.

Diamond and Bates characterize the resolution spot as

"thoughtful and dignified without the overpowering visuals and

the strident noises of the campaign."(14) The only resolution

spot, that of Jack Lousma of Michigan, contained inspirational

appeals. Yet, in viewing the spot, one is equally overwhelmed

by the colorful visuals, which run counter to the findings of

Diamond and Bates. An excerpt of the spot illustrates the style:

Lousma: You can see the beautiful blueof the ocean. You can see the green and

14

Payne/Baukus

brown patchwork of the farmers' fields.You can see the beautifully painteddeserts the way the Master painted themmany years ago. One thing you can't seein looking at the earth and that is theboundaries that divide the countries. Andyou realize that those boundaries areplaced there by people in their inabilityto get along with one another. . . . (15)

ATTACK SPOTS

"We've always known that people like a fight. It's morenewsworthy when. one candidate calls the other a son ofa bitch than when he puts out his white paper oneducation." (16)

Robert Goodman

This study supports the growing trend in political campaigns of

the dominance of attack ads, and suggests that in the ads

examined, the regions of the country most susceptible to "like a

fight" were the south and midwest. In his study of

congressional races, Merritt found that one third of all spots

studied were negative, a finding supported by this study. (17)

(See Chart 1) Even though Diamond and Bates as well as political

consultants identify tills strategy as "the riskiest element of

the campaign," attacks were frequently the dominant mode chosen

by the candidates. (15) Given the prevalence of attacks in the

spots analyzed, the discussion will attempt to address

specifically the trends evident in the negative ads with

illustrative examples.

Most attacks were single issue, except in the south where

15

7

Payne/Baukus

candidates discussed multiple topics. To recapitulate, of the

incumbents who used attacks, all but two won, and only one

challenger was victorious. Thus, while research in the field

suggests that incumbents who use the attack strategy run the

risk of increasing the opponent's name recognition, those spots

analyzed indicate that in the 1984 campaign, this concern was

not crucial to those seeking re-election. Possibly one reason

for the extensive use cf attacks by incumbents in the midwest

and south - Percy, Jepsen, and Helms - was due to the closeness

of the individual races. That is, the major concern was not one

of increasing the opponent's celebrity, but of using the attack

to pry away support from challengers, who according to polls,

were either ahead or dead-even in the contest. Past research by

Merritt on negative advertising suggests that one reason for the

challenger's lack of success using this mode is that such attack

spots reinforce negative feelings voters hold about the

underdog.(19)

Attack spots were primarily employed in the south and directed

at an opponent's character traits. In a noted primary attack ad

by Sam Kusic of West Virginia, the candidate's impressive use of

sophisticated digital graphics was matched by a bombastic attack

on his opponent, Jay Rockefeller. Using black and white graphics

o! a New York skyline, an off-camera announcer delivers a rapid

fire message to voters:

16

Payne/Baukus

The Rockefeller family dynasty, Standard Oil Company,Chase Manhattan Bank, Citicorp Bank, internationalbanks and oil companies conspiring to dominate thethe world through the control of energy, money, andinformation. Big Brother, imposing itself on the freewill of the individual, upon the free will of apeople, upon the free will of the state. 19841 RallyMountaineers! Vote Republican! Sam Kusic, sounds likemusic for the family of West Virginia. With Sam Kusic,United States Senate, We can Win! (23)

Attacks of this type support Charles Guggenheim's opinion that

negative advertising is "fundamentally inferences, innuendos,

and half arguments." Pointing out that some attacks are

lagitimate, Guggenheim argues that most negative spots are not.

Nonetheless, he maintains that "in a short segment it is much

easier to say something bad about a person than something

positive about yourself.'"(21)

Incumbents in the south were most apt to use attacks and mention

their opponents, but also address other issues school prayer,

taxes, and crime. A major theme of Helms attacks identified

differences in opponent Jim Hunt's record and his political

promises, as well as the large out-of-state support for Hunt.

One ad massaged the age-old cleavage between north and south,

asking viewers, "Who is the New York Committee to Elect Jim

Hunt?" A film clip within the attack spot featured Hunt telling

viewers that the New York Committee was comprised of "young

people from North Carolina who went to school here at Carolina

and Duke and Wake Forest and State." The off-camera announcer

raises the question: "Young people from North Carolina? . .

. Governor Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Senator Daniel Patrick

17

Payne/Baukus

Moynihan? Now something's wrong here!" The annnouncer then

informs viewers that if they "want a complete list of other

young people from North Carolina to write to Jim Hunt, c/o The

New York Committee to Elect Jim Hunt, 230 Park Avenue, New York,

New York." The implied argument of this spot was that while

carpetbagging Yankees supported Hunt, true North Carolinians

should rally around Helms and preserve the state's

sovereignty.(22)

Attacks in the midwest generally were more trait-oriented.

Senator Charles Percy, in one of the most emotive and

controversial negative spots implied that challenger Paul Simon

was anti-American in his actions during the Iranian hostage

crisis, and visually associated the Illinois congressman with

the Ayatollah Khomeini. This ad reportedly resulted in a

backlash, thus providing support for political advisor John

Deardourff's view that frequently the attack ad "hardens the

lines quickly - people leaning heavily toward a candidate will

probably be firmed in his favor by any attacks on him." (23)

In this instance, many of the Illinois voters viewed tLe spot as

unfair. (24)

Also, in general, challengers in the north were more issue

oriented in their attacks, while incumbents in this region

zeroed in on the challenger's personal traits.

One unique attack strategy adopted the same approach utilized by

18

20

Payne/Baukus

consultant Robert Goodman, who often employs humor to dilute

the attack message. Challenger Mitch McConnell's controversial

attack spot implied that Kentucky Senator Walter D. Huddleston

had been derelict in the performance of his official duties. The

spot featured a hunter and blood hounds searching throughout the

country for the bluegrass senator:

SPOT SUBJECT: WHERE IS DEE HUDDLESTON?

VIDEO

CAMERA UP ON HUNTER WITHHOUNDS SNIFFING A PRINTED"DEE HUDDLESTON" T-SHIRTAND A PICTURE OF THEKENTUCKY SENATOR.

HUNTER AND HOUNDS IN FRONTOF THE CAPITOL BUILDINGSEARCHING FOR HUDDLESTON

HUNTER SHOWN WALKING DOWNSTREETS WITH BLOOD HOUNDSIN HOT PURSUIT.

HUNTER AND DOGS STANDING INFRONT OF TWO HIGHWAY SIGNSWITH ARROWS POINTING INOPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.

HUNTER AND DOGS SHOWN BYPOOL IN LOS ANGELES WITHMAN READING "VARIETY" ANDLOUNGING BY POOL.

HUNTER AND DOGS SHOWNON BEACH IN PUERTO RICO.

HUNTER ASKS SUNBATHERTHE QUESTION.

HUNrH AND HOUNDS SHOWN

19

AUDIO

HUNTER (SOF): "MY JOB WASTO FIND DEE HUDDLESTONAND GET HIM BACK TO WORK."

HUNTER: "HUDDLESTON WASMISSING BIG VOTES ONSOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENSE,AND EVEN AGRICULTURE."

HUNTER: "HUDDLESTON WASSKIPPING VOTES BUT MAKINGAN EXTRA FIFTY THOUSANDDOLLARS GIVING SPEECHES.

HUNTER: "I JUST MISSEDHIM!"

HUNTER: "WHEN DEE MISSEDVOTES FOR HIS $1000 LOSANGELES SPEECH."

HUNTER: "I WAS CLOSE ATDEE'S $2000 SPEECH INPUERTO RICO. LET'S GOBOYS. I'VE GOT HIM NOW!"

HUNTER: "CAN YOU POINT METO DEE HUDDLESTON? THANKYOU VERY MUCH!"

HUNTER: "WE CAN'T FIND

21

Payne/Baukus

EXHAUSTED BACK IN KENTUCKY DEE! MAYBE WE OUGHTWOODS. TO LET HIM MAKE SPEECHES!"

SUDDEN CUT TO KEYED OINDOWAND SIGNATURE OF MITCHMCCONNELL.

HUNTER:"AND SWITCHTO MITCH FOR SENATOR."

(25)

Recalling Garth's philosophy on the legitimate use of ettack

spots, investigation of McConnell's version raises ethical

questions on content validity versus overall effect.(26) Even

though the spot was popular with viewers, and was frequently

singled out for its uniqueness by national correspondents, the

message was actually inconsistunt with the facts. Newsweek

concluded that the charge against Huddleston's attendance record

was "ba.F.eless"; that the Kentucky senator "was present 94

percent of the time." Furthermore, the publication's election

analysis commented on the problem of such spots for lackluster

candidates, concluding that, in narrowly losing the election to

McConnell, Huddleston "failed to shake the scent of the slacker

that the ad sprayed over him." (27)

The source of the attack was most often an unidentified

oft-camera announcer on behalf of the candidate. This finding

suggests a possible trend in political spots. Initially,

according to Diamond and Bates, direct personal attacks were

prevalent, followed by political surrogates, constituents, and

most recently, symbolic attacks.(28)) Employing the ticking

stop-watch as a symbol, David Garth's off-camera announcer told

voters they had "ten seconds to think of one job George

20

Payne/Baukus

Deukmejian ever created," in the California gubernatorial

election of 1982.(29) In this study there were no direct

personal attacks, nor use of constituents or political

surrogates as attackers. The use of the unidentified off-camera

announcer as the principle attack source suggests that in the

spots examined, the candidates placed more value on the actual

message content than on a readily identifiable source.

Attack ads were the most diverse spot studied in length, ranging

from 60 seconds to the more novel 10 second spot, the latter

used by Senator Jesse Helms. These succinct spots adopted a

similar technique to that used in one of the first attack

spots; a 1956 spot featuring Democratic vice-presidential

candidate Estes Kefauver employed a film clip of Eisenhower to

attack Eisenhower.(30) Yet, in the Helms attack ad, the message

was not delivered by an interested party but, consistent with

the trend noted, by an unidentified off-camera announcer who

told viewers:

SPOT'S SUBJECT: HUNT'S STAND ON TAXES

VIDEO

SMALL KEYED WINDOW GRAPHICOF JIM HUNT WITH HIS HANDRAISED APPARENTLY VOTING.ALSO, NEWSPAPER HEADLINERELDING: "HUNT VOTES PLAN TOINCREASE TAXES."

CUT TO TWO KEYED WINDOWS OFHUNT; ONE SPEAKING AND ONESTILL.

AUDIO

ANNOUNCER(V0): "g10 VOTEDTO RAISE OUR TAXES? THESAME JIM HUNT WHO SAYS .

. ."

JIM HUNT(SOF): "I DO NOTPROPOSE THAT WE RAISETAXES."

BOTH KEYED WINDOWS OFHUNT FEATURED, ALONGWITH GRAPHIC OF THEANNOUNCER'S MESSAGE.

TINY WINDOW OF JESSE HELMSWITH A PAID FOR.

(31)

Payne/Baukus

hNNOUNCER:(LAUGHING VO)"YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTHWAYS, JIM!"

SPOT'S SUBJECT: HUNT'S STAND ON SCHOOL PRAYER

VIDEO

SMALL KEYED WINDOW GRAPHICOF JIM HUNT, AND NEWSPAPERHEADLINE READING: "HUNT CHIDESHELMS ON HIS SUPPORT OF SCHOOLPRAYER."

CUT TO TWO KEYED WINDOWS OFHUNT; ONE SPEAKING AND ONESTILL.

BOTH KEYED WINDOWS OFHUNT FEATURED ALONG WITHA GRAPHIC OF ANNOUNCER'SOF THE ANNOUNCER'S MESSAGE.

TINY KEYED WINDOW OF JESSEHELMS WITH A PAID FOR.

(32)

AUDIO

ANNOUNCER(V0): "WHOCRITICIZED JESSE HELMS FORSUPPORTING SCHOOL PRAYER?"THE SAME JIM HUNT WHOSAID. . .":

JIM HUNT (SOF):"I'VE BEEN SPEAKING OUT INFAVOR OF VOLUNTARY PRAYERIN SCHOOLS."

ANNOUNCER:(LAUGHING VO):"YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTHWAYS JIM!"

In running these issue-oriented spots, the Helms campaign

identified two salient issues that it believed signaled Jim

Hunt's inconsistencies, and adopted a political tac consistent

with David Garth's philosophy on negative campaigning: "Where

it's on the record that a man or a woman voted wrong, negative

.

Payne/Baukus

ads are legitimate." (33)

CONCLUSIONS:

By way of conclusion, a summary of the major trends of this

analysis is offered. The two most prevalent spot categories

among the ads analyzed were attack and argument followed by ID.

The findings of this study are commensurate with past research

on growing trends in political advertising. This element of

consensus suggests there to be a trend toward greater usage of

negative spots in the political campaign. Regionally, attack

ads were concentrated in the south and midwest, but were also

found in the west and north. Attacks were a particularly

important tool for incumbents involved in bitter struggles in

the south and midwest, and were popular among secure incumbents

in the west. The topic addressed most frequently in attack spots

was character traits of the opponent, delivered by an

unidentified off-camera announcer.

With the exception of a tendency among most candidates to

discuss positive character traits, the distribution among topics

addressed was fairly even. The only notable regional difference

on this variable was that the issue of crime was mentioned often

in spots shown in the south and midwest. Candidates also

presented these topics in a casual style, shunning a specific

detailed discussion.

Payne/Baukus

The use of a popular president as an endorser was overwhelmingly

favored in one region, the south, where Reagan extolled the

virtues of incumbents Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Roughly,

three quarters of all spots with President Re &igan were aired in

this region.

Controlled spontaneity prevailed as the popular stylistic

presentational strategy. While the r:lndidates were reluctant to

face an objective camera peering into everyday campaign

episodes, they did tfand to offer viewers a controlled simulation

of actual campaign events, such as press conferences, rallies,

or casual discussions with constituents. If actual campaign

footage was utilized, it was qualified by candidat17 or announcer

voice-overs. Actual dialogue of such events was rarely used.

The fact that most issues were presented in a less detailed

manner might indicate that politicians were not overly concerned

with persuading viewers to align themselves with the candidate

on particular issues. It is suggested instead that candidates

discussed issues in order to be identified with what they

perceived to be the most popular social attitudes and policy

concerns. This strategy is consistent with the position of

political communication guru, Tony Schwartz, who writes:

"Commercials that attempt to tell the listener something are

inherently not as effective as those that attach to something

that is already in him." (34)

24

26

Payne/Baukus

Given the findings of the study and the prevalence of attacks

in political spots, a relevant issue concerns that of propriety

and ethics in nc7ative ads. The consensus of political

consultants seems to suggest that issue oriented attack ads are

legitimate, and thus play an important function in the campaign.

There is also public concurrence among the designers of such

spots that innuendo, half-truths and ill-founded inferences

detract from the public's deliberative process. Nonetheless, in

the spots analyzed in this study, several attack ads catered to

such undesirable appeals.. In some instances, such as former

Senator Charles Percy's attempt to associate challenger Paul

Simon with the Ayatollah Khomeini, the public backlash to the

negative spot might have been a contributing factor in the

incumbent's subsequent defeat. Primary challenger Sam Kusic's

unctuous use of innuendo against Jay Rockefeller highlights the

potential ethical dilemma in the use of this type of spot.

In an attack ad that appeared to be issue oriented, challenger

Mitch McConnell successfully misconstrued the actual facts of

the incumbent's voting record, and won.

Joslyn describes the political spot as "ore of the few forms of

communication over which the candidate has almost complete

control." (35) As a logical expansion of this opinion, the

public should consider political advertisements - especially the

attack spots - as more than mere vehicles for the communication

of information. Because the mediated reality the content,

style, and parameters - of political spots is the sole product

25

27

Payne/Baukus

of the candidate and the consultant, without journalistic

coloring, they provide most of the public with their only

limited view of the candidate, as s/he desires to be viewed.

With the growing trend favoring attack ads, further analysis

should explore the intrinsic elements of the negative spot, in

the attempt to better understand its usage, as well as the

motives and character of candidates employing this controversial

approach.

NOTES

1. Bernard Berelson, "Communication and Pubic Opinion," inWilbur Schramm, ed., Communication in Modern Society, (Chicago:University of Illinois Press, 1948), p. 351.

2. Interview with Robert Sflaier, in Edwin Diamond and StephenBates, The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising onTelevision, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984), p. 353.

3. Interview with Robert Goodman, The Spot, p. 353.

4. Edwin Diamond and Stephen Bates, "The Ads," Public Opinion,vol. 7, no. 6, Dec-Jan, 1985, p. 55.

5. Dwight D. Eisenhower presidential spot, political spotcollection of Emerson College News Study Group, Institute ForCommunication Studies, Boston. All spots mentioned are from thiscollection.

6. Diamond and Bates, "The Ads," p. 55.

7. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, pp. 302-345.

8. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, pp. 302-345.

9. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, pp. 380-381.

10. R.A. Joslyn, "The Content of Political Spot Ads," Journalismpuarterly, vol. 57, 1980, p. 92.

11. Josyln, p. 92.

12. President Ronald W. Reagan in "Salute to Jesse," JesseHelms, North Carolina senatorial spot, 1984.

262P

Payne/Baukus

13. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, p. 318

14. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, p. 345.

15. Jack Lousma, Michigan senatorial spot, 1984.

16. Goodman, The Spot, p. 343.

17. F. Merritt, "Negative Political Advertising: Some EmpiricalFindings," Journal of Advertising, vol 13, 1984, p. 28.

18. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, p. 359.

19. Merritt, p. 36.

20. Sam Kusic, West Virginia senatorial spot, 1984.

21. Interview with Charles Guggenheim, The Spot, p. 342.

22. Jesse Helms, North Carolina senatorial spot, 1984.

23. Interview with John Deardourff, The Spot, p. 360.

24. Personal interview with Edwin Diamond, April 8, 1985.

25. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky senatorial spot, 1984.

26. Interview with David Garth, The Spot, pp. 342-343.

27. Newsweek, Nov-Dec, 1984, p. 26.

28. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, pp. 327-341.

29. Tom Bradley, California gubernatorial spot, 1982.

30. Diamond and Bates, The Spot, p. 85.

31. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Senatorial spot, 1984.

32. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Senatorial spot, 1984.

33. Garth, The Spot, p. 342.

34. Interview with Tony Schwartz, The Spot, p. 333.

35. Joslyn, p. 92.

Payne/Baukus

APPENDIX 1.

POLISPOT PRELIMINARY CODE BOOK

1. CANDIDATE ID NUMBER2. OPPONENT ID NUMBER3. INCUMBENT ID NUMBER4. OFFICE ID NUMBER5. STATE ID NUMBER OR "99" IF REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMILibb SPOT6. PARTY ID

1. YES2. NO

7. WINNERI. CANDIDATE2. OPPONENT

8. SPOT CATEGORYI. ID2. ARGUMENT3. ATTACK4. RESOLUTION5. BIO

9.CONTENT THEME

10.

1. CASUAL MENTION OF ISSUE2. SPECIFIC MENTION/IN DEPTH ( FACT RICH)3. AFFECTIVE APPEALREMOTION R ICH)4. UNFAIR/CORRUPTTOPIC ISSUE1. INDIVIDUAL POLICIES 1 6. SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY2. SOCIAL SECURITY 1 7. SPENDING3. ELDERLY 1 8. UNEMPLOYMENT4. PARTY LOYALTY 1 9. HEALTH CARE5. POLITICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS6. EDUCATION 2 0. HANDICAPPED7. MILITARY 2 1. ENVIRONMENT8. ATHLETIC 2 2. ENERGY9. BUSINESS 2 3. CHILD LAWS10. ECONOMY/NATIONAL SCOPE 2 4. CANDIDATE EFFICACY11. TAXATION/INFLATION 2 5. FARMS12. CHARACTER TRAITS 2 6. PEACE13. CRIME 2 7. ARMS CONTROL14. REFORM 2 8. SCHOOL PRAYER15. OPPONENT 2 9. WOMEN'S ISSUES

11. ENDORSEMENT/ATTACK ID1. CANDIDATE SELF-ADVOCATE 7. PRESIDENT2. OPPONENT 8. CONTRIBUTORS3. 9. STAFF MEMBERPERSON IN STRhhi4. CONSTITUENT 1 0. JOURNALIST/MEDIA

1 1. PARTY SELF ADVOCATE12. SYMBOLIC ARTIFACTS

1. OFFICE RELATED2. PARTY RELATED3. STATE RELATED

Payne/Baukus

4. ISSUE RELATED13. USE OF HUMOR

1. YES2. NO

14. RELIGOUS REFERENCE1. YES2. NO

15. MENTIONS OF OPPONENT16. MENTIONS OF CANDIDATE17. VISUAL INTRO TO SUBJECT

1. GRAPHIC/KEYED WINDOW2. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR. CANDIDATE V/O3. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR, CANDIDATE ON CAMERA4. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR, ANNOUNCER V/O5. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR, ENDORSER/ATTACKER V/O6. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR, ENDORSER/ATTACKER 0/C7. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR, OTHER

18. CANDIDATE VISUAL INTRO1. GRAPHIC/KEYED WINDOW2. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR, CANDIDATE V/O3. DEAD CUT TO ROLLING VTR, CANDIATE ON CAMERA

19. SPOT VISUAL OUTRO1. GRAPHIC2. KEY WINDOW3. STILL ROLLING VTR WITH SIGNATURE SUPER IMPOSED4. STILL ROLLING VTR WITH SIGNATURE5. KEYED WINDOW GRAPHIC WITH SIGNATURE/PAID FOR6. STILL ROLLING VTR

20. TOTAL NUMBER OF SHOTS21. CANDIDATE SHOTS22. ENDORSER/ATTACKER SHOTS23. USE OF MUSIC

O. NONE1. INCIDENTAL2. JINGLE3. SOUND - NON MUSIC

24. PERSONAL IMPACT1. YES2. NO

25. SOCIAL CONTEXT1. ALONE2. FAMILY3. SMALL CONSTITUENT GROUP4. POLITICIANS/GOVERNMENT5. BUSINESS6. COMMUNITY LEADERS

26. LOCATIONAL CONTEXT1. WASHINGTON (OUTDOOR SHOTS)2. OFFICE/OFFICIAL SETTING3. RALLY4. OUTDOOR, OTHER5. INDUSTRIAL6. URBAN

27. CHYRON - SUPER OVER CANDIDATE

7. RURAL8. HOME9. STUDIO10. UNIDENTIFIABLE11. TOWN MEETING12. SCHOOL

(NAME ID)

29

31

28. CHYRON - OTHER

TIMING VARIABLES

Payne/Baukus

29. SPOT LENGTH30. CANDIDATE 0/C31. CANDIDATE V/032. ENDORSER/ATTACKER 0/C33. ENDORSER/ATTACKER V/O34. OPPONENT 0/C35. OPPONENT V/036. PRESIDENT 0/C and V/O37. ANNOUNCER V/038. PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS(NON-POLITT.AL)

1. EDUCATION2. MILITARY/GOVERNMENT3. ATHLETIC4. BUSINESS5. FAMILY